Boehringer v. Collins is a new precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), decided en banc on July 15, 2026. The case centers on how to interpret 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)(2)(D), which is one of the effective-date provisions added by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA). Effective-date rules matter a lot practically, because they determine how far back your compensation (back pay) can go once a claim is granted.
The opinion, written by Judge Laurer, stresses that the AMA "substantially changed VA's administrative appeals process, creating entirely new procedural pathways and tools that weren't available under the 'legacy' review system," but that Congress did not eliminate the old legacy system entirely. Because of that, the Court says it will interpret AMA provisions like § 5110(a)(2)(D) by looking at "both the text and the context" rather than reading isolated phrases on their own — comparing a narrow reading to "looking at a Van Gogh painting through a soda straw."
Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.
Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.
| Rating | Monthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA) |
|---|---|
| 10% | $180.42 |
| 20% | $356.66 |
| 30% | $552.47 |
| 40% | $795.84 |
| 50% | $1,132.90 |
| 60% | $1,435.02 |
| 70% | $1,808.45 |
| 80% | $2,102.15 |
| 90% | $2,362.30 |
| 100% | $3,938.58 |
Does your rating decision hold up under a real audit?
Upload your decision letter and C&P exams — VetAid's analyzer reads the full file, checks every examiner statement word-for-word against your records, and shows which arguments for a higher rating actually hold. Free, and we never take a cut of your back pay.
Analyze my claim free →Importantly, the excerpt provided here is only the introductory portion of the opinion. It confirms the case involves veteran David W. Boehringer challenging an October 27, 2023, Board of Veterans' Appeals decision issued under the AMA, and that the case was significant enough to be reheard en banc (by six judges plus a senior judge) after an earlier three-judge panel argument, with a dissenting opinion from Senior Judge Bartley joined by Judges Toth and Jaquith. That the case drew a full en banc rehearing and a three-judge dissent signals the effective-date question was genuinely contested and could affect many AMA claims.
However, the text supplied does not state what the Court actually held — it does not say whether the Board's interpretation was upheld or reversed, does not give the specific effective date rule adopted, and does not address retroactivity or whether the ruling applies to already-pending claims. Those details are not present in this excerpt, so nothing here should be assumed about how your own effective date will be calculated yet.
If you have a pending claim or appeal where your effective date depends on how VA applied § 5110(a)(2)(D) under the AMA, don't take action based on assumptions about this ruling — instead, watch for the full published opinion's holding, and consider asking your representative or VSO to review how the eventual holding might apply to your specific effective-date dispute before deciding whether to file a supplemental claim or appeal.
Need a deeper analysis?
Our AI checks your situation against outcome data from 1,300,000+ Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) decisions (2009–2025).
Analyze Your Claim Free